1 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:21379 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 Alok Kumar Singh, son of Late Raj Kishore Singh, resident of Balbir Villa, Ashok Nagar, Near Road No.2, Kadru, PO and PS: Argora, District: Ranchi. ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand; 2. Md. Anwar, son of Md. Aziz, resident of Anand Vihar, Opposite Sai Anand Apartment, Kadru, PO and PS: Argora, District: Ranchi. ...Respondents CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA-III … 08/ 20.07.2026 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA-III. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2024 registered for the offences under sections 406, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case arises out of a written report submitted by Md. Anwar (respondent no.2) in which it has been stated that he had entered into a Development Agreement with Ramchandra Singh, the owner of 5 katthas of land, situated at Mouza: Argora, PS No. 208, Khata No.130, R.S. Plot No.2087 and 2087/7, District: Ranchi for construction of a multi-storied residential apartment. As per the said agreement 32% of the share was earmarked to the land owner while the informant had 68% share. In the year 2008 after obtaining a power of attorney he had entrusted the construction on the said piece of land to Alok Singh (petitioner) and the share of Alok Singh was fixed at 42% out of the share of the informant. It has been stated that Alok Singh had got the maps sanctioned from the concerned authority after which he started the construction work. In the year 2010 Alok Singh had completed the construction which was named Radhika Aashirwad Niwas wherein eight flats of 1400 sq. ft. were constructed. The share of the informant was three flats and 504 sq. ft. of another flat. In March, 2010 Alok 2 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 Singh gave the informant a proposal to register flats to his customers and in lieu of three flats and 500 sq. ft. in one flat he was willing to give Rs.16,12,800/-. Since the relationship between the informant and Alok Singh was cordial he, on the basis of the power of attorney granted to him by the land owner got registered five flats to the customers brought by Alok Singh. When after a few days the informant wanted to take possession of the three flats as well as get paid the amount by Alok Singh he could not contact Alok Singh who had gone to Patna. When after 3-4 months the informant met Alok Singh he was in a distressed state and he disclosed that his wife has filed a case against him in Patna and she has also taken away his son. The informant on account of the trouble being faced by Alok Singh kept quiet and in the meantime the land owner was pressurizing him for his share in the flats. The informant on account of the pressure created by the land owner invested Rs.5,00,000/- and completed construction of two flats in the 4th floor and handed it over to Ramchandra Singh. It has been alleged that later on the informant came to know that the flat in the name of the informant in the 1st floor was surreptitiously sold by Alok Singh to one Jugnu Kumar. The accused Alok Singh had usurped 17% of the share of the informant and the land owner which is valued at about Rupees One Crore. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2024 was instituted under sections 406, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has been submitted by Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner that a perusal of the First Information Report would reveal that the dispute is purely civil in nature. The agreement between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 was entered into on 09.10.2008 and the FIR has been lodged on 16.09.2024 and such inordinate delay has not been explained by the respondent no.2. It has further been submitted by Mr. Sinha that alleging misappropriation of the area allotted to the share of the land owner as agreed upon the land owner had instituted a First Information Report against the petitioner and the respondent no.2 being Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021. The respondent no.2 was well aware of the case instituted by the land owner as he had filed an application for anticipatory bail which was rejected on 11.01.2024 and in order to save his skin the subsequent case has been instituted by him against the petitioner. Both the criminal cases basically arise out of the same transaction and therefore, the latter criminal case instituted against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 3 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 5. Learned AC to GA-III has submitted that though two FIRs have been instituted the only common element is of the petitioner being arrayed as an accused in both the cases. Since two different versions have been depicted in both the FIRs the plea of ‘sameness’ does not arise. It has also been submitted that a case may have civil and criminal features and merely because the matter relates to a monetary transaction and handing over of flats to the land owner and the respondent no.2 but the same would attract a criminal offence as well considering the dubious manner in which the entire episode unfolded. He has thus prayed for dismissal of this writ application. 6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the First Information Report in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2024 on three grounds which are as follows: (a) There has been an inordinate and inexplicable delay of almost fifteen years from the date when the agreement was entered into and such lodging of the First Information Report is to protect the informant from criminal prosecution launched by the land owner by way of Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021; (b) the dispute itself is civil in nature touching upon the failure to adhere to the contractual obligations in terms of the agreement entered into; (c) the land owner had earlier instituted a case being Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021 against the petitioner and the respondent no.2 relating to the same transaction which tested in the anvil of the allegations levelled in both the cases would denote ‘sameness’ in both the cases. 8. The law is quite specific with respect to the test to be applied in case of an assertion that the contents of the FIR in both the cases are same and similar and in this context, reference is made to the case of “Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 wherein it has been held as follows: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C. is a very important document. It is the first information of a cognizable offence recorded by the officer in charge of the police station. It sets the machinery of criminal law in motion and marks the commencement of the investigation which ends with the formation of an opinion under Section 169 or 170 Cr.P.C., as the case may be, and forwarding of a police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.. Thus, it is quite possible that more than one piece of information be given to the police officer in charge of the police station in respect of the same incident involving 4 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 one or more than one cognizable offences. In such a case, he need not enter each piece of information in the diary. All other information given orally or in writing after the commencement of the investigation into the facts mentioned in the first information report will be statements falling under Section 162 Cr.P.C. 21. In such a case the court has to examine the facts and circumstances giving rise to both the FIRs and the test of sameness is to be applied to find out whether both the FIRs relate to the same incident in respect of the same occurrence or are in regard to the incidents which are two or more parts of the same transaction. If the answer is in the affirmative, the second FIR is liable to be quashed. However, in case, the contrary is proved, where the version in the second FIR is different and they are in respect of the two different incidents/crimes, the second FIR is permissible. In case in respect of the same incident the accused in the first FIR comes forward with a different version or counterclaim, investigation on both the FIRs has to be conducted.” 9. The aforesaid view has been reiterated in the case of “Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation” reported in (2013) 6 SCC 348 wherein it has been held as follows: "38. Mr. Raval, learned ASG, by referring T.T. Antony submitted that the said principles are not applicable and relevant to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said judgment laid down the ratio that there cannot be two FIRS relating to the same offence or occurrence. The learned ASG further pointed out that in the present case, there are two distinct incidents/occurrences, inasmuch as one being the conspiracy relating to the murder of Sohrabuddin with the help of Tulsiram Prajapati and the other being the conspiracy to murder Tulsiram Prajapati a potential witness to the earlier conspiracy to murder Sohrabuddin. We are unable to accept the claim of the learned ASG. As a matter of fact, the aforesaid proposition of law making registration of fresh FIR impermissible and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution is reiterated and reaffirmed in the following subsequent decisions of this Court: (1) Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash, (2) Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (3) Chirra Shivraj v. State of A.P., and (4) C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. In C. Muniappan this Court explained the "consequence test" i.e. if an offence forming part of the second FIR arises as a consequence of the offence alleged in the first FIR then offences covered by both the FIRs are the same and, accordingly, the second FIR will be impermissible in law. In other words, the offences covered in both the FIRS shall have to be treated as a part of the first FIR. 40. In view of the factual situation as projected by CBI itself, the ratio laid down by this Court in C. Muniappan viz. merely because two separate complaints had been lodged did not mean that they could not be clubbed together and one charge-sheet could not be filed (see T.T. Antony)." 10. It is to be seen in the context of the present case as to whether there is a ‘sameness’ in the latter case with the earlier FIR being Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021. Since the allegations in connection with Argora P.S. Case 5 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 No. 245 of 2024 have already been taken note of it is to be gathered from the contents of the written report of the land owner as to whether the same is relatable with the same transaction. The written report of Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021commences with the Development Agreement between the land owner and the respondent no.2 in the present case and the power of attorney issued in favour of the respondent no.2. The share of the constructed area of the flat was assigned as 32% to the land owner and 68% to the respondent no.2. After the flat was constructed despite the repeated requests of the land owner to give him possession of three flats which was agreed upon the respondent no.2 dithered and after much persuasion two flats were handed over and though a possession letter was given to the land owner by the respondent no.2 for the third flat but the keys were not given on the pretext that some unfinished work in the flat has to be completed. When on 15.08.2001 the land owner visited the third flat he found the name plate of Pintu Barnwal and Shashi Barnwal in the said flat and Pintu Barnwal had disclosed that he had purchased the flat from Alok Singh. In course of inquiry the land owner could come to know that the respondent no.2 had given the work of construction of the multi-storied building to the petitioner for which a Development Agreement was also entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2. 11. The shared aspect of Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021 and Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2024 is of a Development Agreement entered into between the land owner and the respondent no.2, the power of attorney assigned to the respondent no.2 by the land owner and the subsequent Development Agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 pursuant to which the multi-storied building was constructed. The other common element is the dispute which arose regarding handing over of flats as per the share demarcated to the land owner, the respondent no.2 and the petitioner. A perusal of both the FIRs and on considering the underlying nuances in their contents there cannot be any qualm that both relate to the same transaction and the subsequent allegation made in the FIR lodged by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner is a part and consequence of the initial transaction. It would also seem that in order to salvage his innocence the respondent no.2 had lodged the subsequent case. Though the question of delay in lodging the First Information Report and the allegations being civil in nature have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but I refrain myself from making any observation on the said issues lest it 6 W.P. (Cr.) No. 993 of 2024 prejudices the learned trial Court in Argora P.S. Case No. 252 of 2021. 12. Thus on consideration of the facts of the case, the ‘sameness’ it generates and the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babubhai (supra.) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (supra.) I come to a conclusion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in connection with Argora P.S. Case No. 245 of 2024 would be an abuse of the process of law and would be a travesty of justice and hence, the same is hereby quashed and set aside. 13. This application is allowed. 14. Pending IA, if any, stands closed. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated: 20.07.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 20.07.2026